TheLeviathan

The "really offensive" part is the issue. The unwritten rules are full of things that are completely mundane. You know....like trying to bunt for a hit. Or staring at your homerun for a second or two. Or standing "too close" to the batters box line. Baseball players get petulant for what is best compared in football to a spike after a touchdown. Or flexing after a dunk. Or jumping into the boards after a goal. Imagine football players starting a fight on the field because a running back took the ball for 10 yards when the faux rules say he should lay down after 5. Or equally preposterous notions. The unwritten rules have nothing to do with egregious offenses. They are a system of justifications for the exact opposite - free reign to act like a fool over nothing.

At least Pelfrey and KC didn't cost Gibson a roster spot, but this is the folly in handing rotation spots to two low floor-low ceiling geezers with no chance of helping the future and minimal potential to help the present.

I hope not, but they held a special enough place for him that they lined him up for the home opener. As Bonnes said in his series preview, he's just the kind of guy that this leadership group falls irrationally in love with much to the chagrin of all of us.

I have a hard time believing that their guy who they gave the home opener to as a gift for last year is suddenly going into the dog house this quickly. I want to believe it, I really do.

I never made the "violence is wrong" argument. I made the "unwritten rules are dumb" argument. The violence angle came in (for the second time) when some basically said this: to the idea of children showboating as a justification for throwing hard, 80-90 mph objects at people. The problem with the unwritten rules isn't the violence...it's the utterly ridiculous reasons for committing it.

Ok, but walks and OBP are strongly related. They're 19th in slugging. 13th in BA. 10th highest SO total. Their BaBIP is .316. Fangraphs projects that if all things stayed the same they'd go from scoring 5.5 runs a game to 4.01 runs per game. It's a very sizable bit of luck they are having.

Throw in 14 unearned runs on that tally and the evidence is overwhelming that this is flukey production so far. The approach can be maintained and that's the encouraging part, but there is simply no way you can look at the peripherals of this offense and suggest the Twins have been anything other than extremely lucky.

What dominance in back to back games! Granlund is becoming legit in front of our eyes.

Right, if things to normalize it could still be a good thing for the team. The worrisome thing for repeating last year (nose dive in May) is that the pitching has to completely turn around, while the hitting could see a serious step backward just by no longer being lucky. If the luck runs out before the pitching turns around, things could get ugly.

Let's see if the scoring can keep up. When you look at the total picture of offensive statistics and play the "which of these is not like the others" - it's clearly the runs scored. They've had a ton of unearned runs and all of their other significant stats trail the other top scoring teams significantly. That implies a lot of good fortune.

It's early and, in my opinion probably unsustainable, but to me the coaches get the bulk of the credit and the players get some for executing it. There is a very clear difference in the approach our lineup is taking this year. The days of "swing like a man" appear to have given way to patience. It's a welcome and wise change.

After this month a lifetime contract for Bruno seems called for.

A small sample size doesn't mean you can't worry. There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of his struggles so it is justifiable to be on either side of the issue. I don't dismiss people's confidence in him to rebound, but I don't think genuine concern about him should be dismissed either.

Pretty much a fairy tale first month for the guy. Good for him.

That's exactly how it comes off. As has most of your Mauer-centric arguments lately. Your past tone on the same player and the same issue seem relevant to me. I'll feel better about Mauer when he starts to look like Mauer again. Right now he doesn't.

Which no one did and if I had suggested the same degree of hyperbole to you would a little birdie be in my inbox? I said I was worried because he doesn't look like the old Mauer and with concussions this is a valid fear. One all Minnesotans should understand. Your "well duh!" response was in direct opposition to your aggressive offseason rejections of any worries about him. I don't believe Mauer's issues are a "well duh!" matter and frankly don't appreciate that approach to a valid concern. Unless of course you have actual insight as to win his worrisome issues will abate. In which case please share that in whatever "well duh!" matter you'd like.

No, you just aggressively went after anyone that pointed out he may be a regression candidate and a significant one at that. Many neutral projection systems put him at this as well and you were quick to dismiss them as "insane". As Nick points out - he's not hitting for even gap power at this point, his BABIP and K rate may be evidence of a weakening contact rate, and he's aging. My problem is how matter-of-factly you dismiss a legitimate concern after spending the offseason railing on anyone that was putting Mauer anyone near a .750 OPS. It's not particularly consistent to harp on people that there is "no reason" to expect that much regression from Mauer when there was, in fact, reasons. The very ones you laid out in this thread to take the exact opposite position you held earlier. Yeah, it's early, and I'm concerned. I was concerned this offseason as well. I'm hoping he starts doing some things to alleviate those concerns, that's all.

Why were none of these things acceptable in the offseason when he was being pegged for a down season and you and many others were calling it absurd that he'd struggle? Now it's suddenly reasonable that he's WAY under even the pessimistic progressions?

I'd feel a lot better about Mauer if he looked like he was fine. Maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there...but he just doesn't look right. Something is off/slow/unusual.

Well...no. I count in your link a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct starting it and then physicality broke out after the whistle. (Also against the rules) Here is the relevant part you apparently missed where rules were indeed violated: With 9 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, Miami H-back James Bryant caught a 5-yard touchdown pass from quarterback Kyle Wright, making the score 13-0 Miami. After scoring, Bryant pointed towards Miami's West End zone. Bryant, who later transferred to the University of Louisville, was called for unsportsmanlike conduct. During the ensuing PAT attempt, FIU safety Chris Smith wrestled Miami holder Matt Perelli to the ground after the kick and appeared to punch him in the chin. FIU cornerback, Marshall McDuffie, Jr., kicked Perelli in the head.[3]

You utterly ignored the important distinction. So I'll post it again with the section bolded: ONLY in baseball does a brawl erupt because you did something perfectly within the rules. (Like..bunt against a shift. Or steal a base with a lead) This isn't about which sport has the most fights. It isn't about whether or not it's right for baseball players to brawl. (That issue has only been stressed because one poster comically chided the idea of youngsters emulating showboating while simultaneously endorsing horrific conflict resolution skills like "throw a baseball at em!") It's not even about how players on the field react to slights. (Though I'd argue the notion we'd compare football to baseball absurd. Baseball's physicality is more akin to a fierce game of Bridge than it is to Football. So the comparison is again poor) The issue is that baseball players have concocted a set of faux rules that are often in complete disagreement with the game's actual rules and play, all so that it can justify them acting like petulant clowns. How their petulant, clownish behavior manifests (fights, beanings, bench clearing squawk fests) is utterly irrelevant. The problem is there is a system of juvenile "rules" to justify people acting like children.

Assault is the use of threats or violence to hurt another person. What is throwing a heater at someone's ribcage meant to do if not hurt or threaten them? It is only "insane" because you've done all sorts of contortions to fit every fight that happens in a sport under some strange, ridiculously broad definition of celebrate/taunt. You refuse to compare apples to apples and keep setting up all these baseless comparisons to somehow save your argument. Hockey players hitting each other with a stick is not the same as a guy admiring a homerun. Have you ever seen a hockey player celebrate a goal and then get assaulted for doing so? Ever see a dunk celebration or football celebration retaliated, in that moment, on the field? I can't and it's certainly insanely uncommon if it ever has. In baseball we get dozens of them every year for nothing more than celebrating an accomplishment. That's an apples to apples comparison. A few quick hitters: yes, players are being beaned - by both pitches and fists these days. Second, they are upset by the act. The act is important because it illustrates how absurd the unwritten rules are. You want the other team of professionals to stop doing certain arbitrary things at arbitrary points in the game based on arbitrary perceptions of when a game is out of hand. And in that mess of arbitrary nonsense you act like a petulant child should anyone offend your nonsensical perception of being slighted. No other sport has that system. And, as the thread says, it's not smart. As evidenced by what a clown Porter and many others will look like this year. All it does is indulge whiners with no coping skills and makes them feel justified in acting like clowns.

It would be easier to compile a list of what Hicks does well in the field. (Hint: It ain't much) That LD% and GB/FB ratio tell me his BABIP has far more to do with weak contact than bad luck.

You seem to be struggling to grasp the problem here. The problem isn't that they are fighting. All sports have unnecessary fighting happen. So let's get off that. What you just did was use two compilation videos as evidence that other leagues fight for taunting. I can tell you that a healthy share of the scraps in those videos had literally nothing to do with taunting. Many of the football ones were because of physicality that lasted past the whistle. That is not in the same universe as standing and admiring a homerun and I'm not sure how you can think it is. So let me again make this distinction clear: In football hitting after the whistle is illegal. Sometimes it causes fighting to break out because guys aren't respecting that actual rule that keeps people safe. In baseball you can get assaulted because you stole a base. Not because you cleated someone on your way in. Not because you threw your shoe at the pitcher before you took off. Not for any other reason than stealing a base - something totally 100% legal to do in the sport. Likewise you can drop a bunt and be assaulted. (I find it laughable that you'd use the "well they're only kinda hurting them" excuse about beanings) Not that you dropped a bunt and karate kicked the catcher. Not dropped a bunt and gave a forearm shiver to the guy fielding it. Just...friggin...dropped...a...bunt....attempt. That's enough to get you thrown at. ONLY in baseball is there an entire set of rules in contradiction to the actual rules that justify assaulting one another. In the rest of the leagues fighting generally only happens when the actual rules are violated dangerously by an opponent.

I think this bears repeating because this is the crux of my issue: ONLY in baseball does a brawl erupt because you did something perfectly within the rules. (Like..bunt against a shift. Or steal a base with a lead)